Should the term "hate speech" ever be used in discourse among professed Buddhists? Or should the term be completely expunged from usage, on the basis that its very usage implies judgment about another person's mindstate?

Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,But never soddens what is open;Uncover, then, what is concealed,Lest it be soddened by the rain.

It is best to attack the message of those positions, not the messenger. We may not know fully how a person actually feels, except of course in some extreme cases of those stating their memberships in hate groups.

From the Terms of Service:

Members are expected to self-moderate, being mindful of the adage that 'behaviour breeds behaviour'. Mutual respect and friendliness should be the basis of all interactions.

Jechbi wrote:Should the term "hate speech" ever be used in discourse among professed Buddhists?

I find the concept of "hate speech" is a bit faulty because it's limited to specific targets. Have you ever seen the South Park episode where they talk about "hate crimes"?

Jechbi wrote:Or should the term be completely expunged from usage, on the basis that its very usage implies judgment about another person's mindstate?

I think it's fine to talk about the mindstate of hatred, generally. What I'm not a fan of is inferring that other people's speech is being coloured by particular unwholesome mindstates, and then in turn using that as a Buddhist (i.e. anatta-aware version) equivalent of an ad-hominem attack. In other words, the argument that "your argument is baseless because it was presented with an unwholesome state of mind".

(P.S. I'd just like to point out that this wasn't written in relation to the thread that you asked to be locked... I hadn't looked at the latest posts there before typing this)

retrofuturist wrote:What I'm not a fan of is inferring that other people's speech is being coloured by particular unwholesome mindstates, and then in turn using that as a Buddhist (i.e. anatta-aware version) equivalent of an ad-hominem attack. In other words, the argument that "your argument is baseless because it was presented with an unwholesome state of mind".

Thanks, Retro. I can see how this is problematic and not conducive to helpful discourse. I do feel, however, that there are times when it is appropriate to call something by its name, and I do think there are times when hate speech should be pointed out for what it is. But sparingly, if ever.

Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,But never soddens what is open;Uncover, then, what is concealed,Lest it be soddened by the rain.

I think hate speech should be identified as such and pointed out to the person who is doing it. If possible, in a kind way. And if it hurts the person who is using that sort of speech to hear it, perhaps it's the kind of hurt that can lead to insight.

Sometimes the best thing that can be done (or said) is to do (or say) nothing.What I mean to say is that some people have in inate ability to dig themselves deeper in the cesspit.Also, remember that aversion cannot be conquered with more aversion.Metta

Ben

“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.” - Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:in mountain clefts and chasms,loud gush the streamlets,but great rivers flow silently.- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Ngawang Drolma wrote:I think hate speech should be identified as such and pointed out to the person who is doing it.

How can we confidently know it really was hate speech, though?

Is there any foolproof criteria by which such things can be known?

Metta,Retro.

hi Retro,good point, speech is speach, how it is used depends on the context!

I remember a Chris Rock film where he dies and is put in the body of a white old fat man, and sings a song being played on the sound system of the shop which has a certain word in it, repeated over and over, so got his but wooped.there has also been examples of misperception of words here, somepeople like to see the bad in things rather than see things as they are.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion … ...He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill